Does Obama Need Asset Protection?

With the House of Representatives officially passing a bill which would endorse a lawsuit brought against the President of the United States (President Obama), I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment to ask if the President should consider Asset Protection.

Asset Level

When doing an analysis for a client, the first area we look at are assets.  Does the client have sufficient assets to justify protecting them.  In the case of Obama, the answer is surely yes.  As has become apparent via the example of past presidents such as George Bush and Bill Clinton, being President of the United States is a pretty profitable job.  After serving your time, an ex-president can command hundred’s of thousands of dollars for a single speaking gig.  Combine this will the best possible contacts and business opportunities in the world, and you can rest assured that the President has something to lose.

Risk

The next area we look at is Risk.  Is the client in a risky job, or in a business in which he or she is likely to be sued.  There is little doubt that being President comes with lots of risk.  And this isn’t the first time a President has had to contend with a lawsuit.  During the term of service, the President would normally enjoy immunity.  However, the present lawsuit by Congress is adding a twist.  Not to mention that once a President is out of office, he’s back to being free game. So yes, Mr. Obama does have a degree of risk which would suggest he should consider protecting his assets.

Risk Tolerance

A further consideration is personal risk tolerance.  As an Asset Protection Attorney, I help clients identify how much risk they can handle financially and emotionally.  For some people this is very, very little, and even if their assets are only moderate and their risk is low, they still actively seek Asset Protection.  In the case of President Obama, I would suggest that he can handle a great deal of risk.  This would likely hold true for most politicians, especially at the national level.  Normally this is something I would discuss in detail with the client and help them to assess their own level of tolerance for risk around their assets.  In this case I am going to assume that Mr. Obama can handle a great deal of risk.

Optics

The final, and perhaps most important, consideration is what attorneys call ‘Optics’.  This is how the action would appear to a court, jury, judge or in some cases the general public.  And on this point I would suggest that if the President of the United States of America were to take active steps to protect his assets from the U.S. legal system, the optics would be fatal. At it’s core Asset Protection is precisely about removing oneself from, what I consider, a highly dysfunctional legal system.  This is fine for my clients who don’t have public opinion to worry about.  But for the President of the United States of America, I would say it would be an admission of epic proportions that much more than just our legal system is broken. This would be especially true if he were to consider an advanced plan which utilizes an International Asset Protection Trust governed by the laws of a foreign country not subject to the U.S. courts, jurisdiction or legal system, such as The Cook Islands.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis I would suggest that Mr. Obama can pass on considering Asset Protection planning, at least until he is out of office.  Depending on his personal situation at that time, he may want to reconsider.  If he does I would welcome his call.